friend getting married - what happens if the worse were to occur?

username12345678

I've seen so many guys crushed in divorces.

Unfortunately the wisdom about the realities of marriage is only learnt after they have been destroyed financially in a break up.

Mothers should really be educating their sons about the dangers.

...and no, i've never been on the receiving end thank goodness.

bigadaj

atush wrote: »

Of course. But i'd take bets on it

That's a very sexist view of the world.

atush

and I have seen so many women crushed when non married partners split. incl getting nothing from a property they contributed to, and being thrown out of their own home.

Basically, if the idea of splitting up and losing money bothers you, you arent ready to marry. People who marry should not be thinking about splitting up.

And I have educated my 3 sons about finance, incl pensions and investing and how to cook and iron etc. They are fully functional human beings lol.

I dont give them relationship advice, but their parents have been married nearly 3 decades. So they know what work marriage is, and have enough friends with parents who split and were worse off for it to know it is to be avoided.

teddysmum

TheTracker wrote: »

I consider that from the moment I was married everything each of us had was joined and became equal in rights to ownership, and I say that having had 95% of worth before that moment. If the risk of divorce and consequential asset loss had bothered me as much as it bothers you, sorry I mean your friend, I wouldn't have married in the first place.

Your last comment makes a lot of sense.


Very few situations don't change .For example, when we married 45 years ago, I was the larger earner (just started teaching), though my husband had some savings having worked since 17.


Because of staff cuts and having children, my teaching career didn't go as expected and nowthe tables are tuned with me retired and my husband, of pension age, is still working , so bringing in more.

Mojisola

TheTracker wrote: »

I consider that from the moment I was married everything each of us had was joined and became equal in rights to ownership

teddysmum wrote: »

Your last comment makes a lot of sense.

Very few situations don't change .For example, when we married 45 years ago, I was the larger earner (just started teaching), though my husband had some savings having worked since 17.

Because of staff cuts and having children, my teaching career didn't go as expected and now the tables are tuned with me retired and my husband, of pension age, is still working , so bringing in more.

Couples bring much more to marriage than financial assets.

In many couples, the main wage earner shifts back and forth - that's been our experience too - but they also support each other in many other ways which can't be costed out.

If you're planning to marry someone but can only see potential problems with finances, you probably shouldn't sign the paperwork.

IceTry

I am wondering how old your friend is?

I think if both parties are young and starting out, then I think throwing your "lot" in with the other person is fair enough. You are sharing everything, and that includes money. Probably at the beginning both parties are usually on equal footing (unless some big inheritance in immediate view). You hope to choose (or your children to choose) people of good moral character.

I think some older male divorcees do feel hard done by. They have gone on to earn more than their partners, but perhaps forget the "partnership" that enabled them to progress in their careers, including helping them get on the property ladder (a working class man can be caterpulted into home-owning middle-class by taking a working wife) and with women often supporting them in their careers and if they have children doing the main childcare. Not to mention the love, affection, shared interests and humour all through the years. The men who are most bitter in my experience often did not share these things deep down and chose their partner for different reasons - e.g. looks, convention, convenience. Am I allowed to say that? But I do understand why people would want a clean break too (though I think that can mostly be managed to a large extent, except for the very rich, male or female, where the commitment seems to be longer and higher).

However, I do think it is worth educating our sons that marriage entails shared assets.

Equally education is important for daughters or women who don't marry especially if they are going to do the main childcare role (with less pursuit of career or no or less equal share of the mortgage). Otherwise, they can find themselves, literally, on the streets if their common law partner decides its over. The woman may be very surprised to find she has no housing rights for example because she is not married and her name is not on the mortgage and it is not clear how she has contributed. Some "wily" men keep the mortgage and mortgage payments in their names and the woman pays food and other bills, for example. Legally she is a kind of "concubine" even if they have very long and equal relationships, and she can find herself in a very vulnerable position if she has had children and been the main carer, to the detriment of her own career or working life. Marriage can still be seen as the best career for a woman (at least a bourgois woman; nothing much has changed since Jane Austen's time).

Interestingly, I was reading a book about medeival Britain the other day. Divorces in Wales around 15th century was pretty much a 50:50 split. E.g. the man got the bottom bedding, the woman the top-bedding, the woman got the sheep, the man the cows, the man got one cat and the chickens, the woman got ... I forget! Anyway it was surprisingly equal.

In conclusion, most of all, I think your friend should see a solicitor and be clear about his legal responsibilities and position!

cashbackproblems

Ok my brother went through a divorce and as mentioned a prenup isnt valid in the UK. The courts will look to put each other in the position they were in before marriage in a short marriage ie generally considrered to be below 5 years. This changes if kids are involved and she would possibly have the house umtil they are 18 then only she would sell. However during all this time you would struggle to get back on the ladder as u already have one mortgage

Tell him not to put in 80% deposit or if he does have a tenants in common agreement so he keeps his share of deposit in break up. Also to keep any investments or cash seperate and not tell her about it or link it to his main current account as in divorce u are asked to disclose 12 months statements. If he has alot of money he can move some offshore for extra security , but courts cant find out about accounts unless your wife knows about it or you declare it

kidmugsy

bigadaj wrote: »

That's a very sexist view of the world.

and therefore has some decent chance of being realistic.

kidmugsy

Unless you have religious views on the matter, marriage is best seen as an institution for organising the property rights involved in raising children. If they don't plan to have children yet they probably shouldn't marry.

At least in England and Wales the divorce laws seem to me to be almost designed to undermine the institution of marriage, and are quite unjustly subject to retrospective change. Court judgements seem at times arbitrary and whimsical. If your friend is getting cold feet, no wonder. I hope he treats the girl decently whatever he decides.

[Deleted User]

The best thing is to hide your assets and not disclose all your savings / property etc.

Having worked in a bank for a very long time I can't tell you the number of people with assts their partner knows nothing about.